> a judge in the U.K. has pointed to clear benefits of working in-person in promoting “rapid discussion” and “non-verbal communications” in a recent ruling. :DumpsterFire:
> judge Robert Richter ruled that the financial watchdog was “right to identify weaknesses with remote working.” :DumpsterFire:
> “It is the experience of many who work using technology that it is not well suited to the fast-paced interplay of exchanges which occur in, for example, planning meetings or training events when rapid discussion can occur on topics,” Judge Richter wrote in his judgment of the case, which itself was heard remotely with evidence given in video :DumpsterFire: :DumpsterFire: :DumpsterFire:
@trendless also this is ridiculous, in my last full time job I was a mortgage processor and rapid discussion in the workplace slowed me down so much. I used to go in on Saturday and I would get more done on a half day Saturday than I did in a full day with everyone around me doing “rapid discussion” whenever they want.
@trendless This is frightening do you remember in 2020 when a whole bunch of nurses were trying to leave a hospital system in Wisconsin I think it was, the hospital sued to try to force them to continue to come to work even though they had jobs elsewhere?
They lost, but at the same time the president was literally forcing people to go to work in a meatpacking plant where they were getting sick and dying. A meatpacking plant owned by China.
I feel horrible saying this, but since 2020 I’ve actually been so grateful to be disabled. I was sad about it for eight years, I was trying to get myself healthy enough to work at least part time, and I did. But no more. I’m just gonna chill at home with my cat and paint and read and be happy.
So the judge is an expert on behaviour/productivity in the workplace? Who knew? Would love to understand the legal precedent for this. (Not really as there is none.) This is a personal opinion without validity.
Add comment